Global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon and its effects can even be beneficial, according to two leading researchers. Recent climate change is not caused by man-made pollution, but is instead part of a 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling that has happened for the last million years, say the authors of a controversial study.

Dennis Avery, an environmental economist, and Professor Fred Singer, a physicist, have looked at the work of more than 500 scientists and concluded that it is very doubtful that man-made global warming exists. They also say that temperature increase is actually a good thing as in the past sudden cool periods have killed twice as many people as warm spells...

In contrast, they say there is evidence that wildlife is flourishing in the current warming cycle with corals, trees, birds, mammals and butterflies adapting well. In addition, sea-levels are not rising dramatically and storms and droughts have actually been less severe and frequent.

The authors claim that the change is not man-made because the most recent period of global warming took place between 1850 and 1940 when there were far less CO2 emissions than today. They claim to show strong historical evidence of an entirely natural cycle based on data of floods on the Nile going back 5,000 years. Evidence is citing showing records of Roman wine production in Britain in the first century AD.

Prof Singer, a specialist in atmospheric physics at the University of Virginia, said: "We have a greenhouse theory with no evidence to support it, except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events. "The models only reflect the warming, not its cause." They also say that natural temperature change can be caused by fluctuations in the sun.

Well, duh and I told you so. It was just so obvious, wasn't it? And yet the chattering class of the entire world fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Maybe soon we'll be able to get to work on real environmental problems.

Nope. I'm not granting them the shield of good intentions anymore. Greens don't care whom they hurt in the pursuit of their idea of religious perfection any more than Islamic fascists do. Case in point:

Tonight, PBS will air "Gold Futures," a film by Hungary's Tibor Kocsis. The film focuses on residents in Romania's Rosia Montana, a rural Transylvanian town, who are divided over the benefits of a proposed gold mine. It also features Gabriel Resources, the Canadian mining company trying to convince them to relocate so it can dig for a huge gold deposit estimated at 14.6 million ounces, worth almost $10 billion. PBS describes the film as a "David-and-Goliath story."

While the film gives time to supporters and opponents of the mine, it leaves unsaid that half of the villagers voicing opposition have now either sold their homes or will not have to move, because they live in a protected area where the village's historic structures and churches will be preserved. Viewers who see pristine shots of the Rosia valley won't realize the hills hide a huge, abandoned communist-era mine, leaking toxic heavy metals into local streams--or that while the modern mining project will level four hills to create an open pit, it will also clean up the old mess at no cost to the Romanian treasury. ...

Mr. McAleer, a former Financial Times journalist who has followed the mine battle for seven years, says he "found that everything the environmentalists were saying about the project was misleading, exaggerated or quite simply false." He produced his film on a shoestring $230,000 budget largely provided by Gabriel Resources, but says he was given complete editorial control.

The Gabriel funding caused environmental groups to label the film "propaganda" and demand the National Geographic Society cancel plans to rent its Washington, D.C., theater to the free-market Moving Picture Institute for a screening. The Institute notes opponents rarely challenge the film's facts. As for Mr. Kocsis's documentary, his Flora Film corporate Web site lists as its partners Greenpeace, the Hungarian Ministry of Environment and the George Soros-backed Energy Club of Hungary, all of which oppose the Romanian project on either environmental or nationalistic grounds (Transylvania used to be part of Hungary). ...

"Local opposition to the mine is strong and organized" says a statement signed by 80 environmental groups in January.

In his letter, Mr. Soros cites a recent poll organized by some members of Romania's parliament that "found 90% of respondents rejecting the project." But the poll turns out to be an unscientific Internet survey, and one of the environmental groups Mr. Soros funds urged people outside Romania to participate in it. What is clear: Two-thirds of Rosia Montana's people have accepted Gabriel's voluntary offer to buy their homes at above market rates....

Mr. McAleer tells me such encounters should wake up people "who, like myself, unquestionably believed environmentalists were a force for good in the world."... (emphasis added)

If the gold mine goes ahead, then the toxic mess from the old communist mine will be cleaned up. If not, then it won't be. Yet those labeled Greens oppose the mine. Why do you think that is?

The Mashad hangings, broadcast live on local television, are among a series of public executions ordered by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last month as part of a campaign to terrorize an increasingly restive population. Over the past six weeks, at least 118 people have been executed, including four who were stoned to death. According to Saeed Mortazavi, the chief Islamic prosecutor, at least 150 more people, including five women, are scheduled to be hanged or stoned to death in the coming weeks...

Heroes?, those are the same guys you will see in a suburb carring weapons and killing civilians.

The're not Only Al Qaeda doing massacre's in Iraq, just look for more info/photos about the Iraq conflict and you will see with you're own eyes how these "heroes" are planting bodies all over Iraq, by now there are mora than 3000 american soldiers KIA, and over 35000 Civilians Killed.

Ther´s no heroes in a war, just victims, don't you see?, war is usseles, war in Iraq is not for freedom or 9/11, or any other bullshit the goverment throw at us, is just another economic war, just look who is the most profitting, oil companies, weapon companies and a large etc.

Look for the truth, question everything, dont just believe what they say to you, look further.

I will pray to open the eyes from those who are blind, like the bible say the truth will set you free.

Hmm. Well, the commenter "Whoami" is entitled to his opinion. I don't think he meant to be a racist with his first line -- I'll give him the benefit of the doubt there, I think he meant the suburbs of Baghdad. I guess.

I know I would feel terrible if I actually believed our marines were "planting bodies all over Iraq".

I wonder if there's any hope for him, and what he would think if he were to read Michael Yon's latest from Iraq?

No one should argue that we went to war to improve the Mesopotamian environment. We didn't. We did go, in part, to liberate the Iraqi people, so while we were there we helped put the water back into the marshes of southern Iraq. Turns out that little side job is paying fast and big dividends (from John at Random Jottings, a fellow carpenter):

...The restoration of southern Iraq's Mesopotamian marshes is now a giant ecosystem-level experiment. Uncontrolled release of water in many areas is resulting in the return of native plants and animals, including rare and endangered species of birds, mammals, and plants. The rate of restoration is remarkable, considering that reflooding occurred only about two years ago. Although recovery is not so pronounced in some areas because of elevated salinity and toxicity, many locations seem to be functioning at levels close to those of the natural Al-Hawizeh marsh, and even at historic levels in some areas.... You know, since I've told you already, that the Iraq Campaign does not really have a military purpose. We just did it to test leftists. To test whether "liberals are really liberal. Test 'em to destruction; show them up for the evil horrid frauds they are.

I [John] wrote here:

...Iraq was (and is) the big test. To propose regime-change in Iraq is really to say to the Left: , "OK wise guys, you claim to be anti-fascist. Help us remove the worst fascist tyrant of our times. You claim to be humanitarian; here's one of the most brutalized countries of the earth needing our help. You claim you are not anti-Semitic; stand with us against against a monster who was paying bounties to Jew-killers. You claim to care about a certain group that's been denied a homeland; here in the Kurds we have a far bigger group denied a homeland..." (I could go on for a long while with these. You get the picture.)... Now I see there is another test. A test for the fake-environmentalists commonly known as "Greens." The deliberate destruction of the Iraqi Marshes was the biggest environmental crime of our time. Any real environmentalist would be thrilled by the possibility of bringing back to life this vast wetland, and succoring the simple people who lived in harmony with it for at least 5,000 years....

Real environmentalists would be eager to help out. So where are they?

I think that environmentalist is to Green as progressive is to Liberal, i.e., not much difference to any one outside the group looking in. Restoring the marsh, once twice the size of the Everglades, is nice. I'm glad we're able to un-do their deliberate destruction by Saddam Hussein. It's one more way in which Iraq will be a better place after we've left.

In a column in the NY Post, Mr. Leon Weiseltier, literary editor of The New Republic, wrote about Senator Obama's run for the presidency (summary: yes, he's charming, but charming isn't good enough and he hasn't really said anything yet) had some rather thoughtful things to say that I wish I'd hear more of from the Left, such as:

I AM in the fourth or fifth stage of working through my feelings about Barack Obama. In the beginning, I was exhilarated by the appearance of somebody to challenge, and torment, Her Royal Highness - whose dazzling intergalactic celebrity blinds many people to the fact that she may be the most plodding and expedient politician in America....

But skepticism is sedulously arriving. For a start, I hold Obama's suavity against him. Since I am myself not unsuave, I know how much it accomplishes with how little. Charm is not a political virtue. ...

Obama dislikes polarization. I like it. I think it is one of the marks of an engaged citizenry. Obviously it can also become a kind of democratic decadence; but often polarization is simply your name for my refusal to assent to your opinion. ...

"Cynicism" is not an argument, it is an aspersion. Its subject is not ideas but motives. Yet it is entirely possible to have the right ideas and the wrong motives, and the wrong ideas and the right motives. The conservative antipathy to government, which is one of Obama's illustrations of contemporary cynicism, is not at all cynical, even if it is false and dangerous. ...

UNTIL the fall of the Soviet Union, I voted in general elections on foreign- policy grounds. There was an enemy to fear and to fight. Then, for a bizarrely lucky decade, I permitted myself a fuller calculation at the polls. Now I am a bit of a security simpleton again.

If an Iraqi police captain by the name of Jamil Hussein exists, there is no convincing evidence of it - and that means the Associated Press has a journalistic scandal on its hands that will fester until the AP deals with it properly.

In statements, the AP insists Captain Hussein is real, insists he has been known to the AP and others for years, and insists the immolation episode occurred based on multiple eyewitnesses...

It is striking that no one has been able to find a family member, friend, or colleague of Captain Hussein. Nor has the AP told us who in the AP's ranks has actually spoken with Captain Hussein. Nor has the AP quoted Captain Hussein once since the story of the disputed episode...

To make matters worse, Captain Jamil Hussein was a key named source in more than 60 AP stories on at least 25 supposed violent incidents over eight months.

Paul refers to "the big lie"--the U.S. State Department's deliberate cover-up of the fact that Yaser Arafat personally ordered the murder of State's own overseas personnel, including an ambassador. This is indeed a very big lie....

Yet the State Department soldiers blindly on, committed to what must be the biggest lie in American foreign policy--the near-mystical belief that the Palestinian "peace process" holds the key to progress in the Middle East. So committed is State to this myth that it preferred to cover up the murder of its own personnel rather than confront the hollowness of its own policy.

It's tempting to play the "which is worse?" game. On the one hand, good Libertarians expect the government to be arrogant, screwed up, self serving, and incompetent. But an agency covering up the murder of its own ambassador to maintain its orthodoxy? Whoa! On the other hand, the old media has been lefty for, what, forty years now? And, sure, they've lost the bubble when it comes to Bush vs. Jihadis. But when did they become so cowardly that they fall for obvious terrorist stringer lies and refuse to come clean about it when confronted?

Really, these two institutions have committed and are committing the same sin: they will not betray their orthodoxy no matter what.

Life would be a lot better, and there would be a lot more people still alive today, if the AP and State could find it in their hearts to throw their shoulder to the damn wheel.

I doubt many of you read the comments left by other visitors, so I thought I'd put up front three I received to yesterday's post "Well, we got our butts kicked". First from my favorite Lefty, Rob of Emphasis Added (great blog name!) who showed his genius by agreeing with me:

"voters perceive Democrats as spending big money on them, the voters, whereas Republicans are seen as spending on themselves and on Big Business."

That is a really good observation. Also, on moral turpitude and sexual scandal, Dems can survive better than R's because Dems don't make sexual morality part of their politics. They may be perverts, but at least they're not hypocrites and perverts.

You might also take comfort in the fact that the Dem majority this year was made possible by socially-moderate, fiscally-responsible candidates like Casey, Webb, Tester, Schuler, etc. The old liberals may be in charge of the committees in the House, but they owe their seats to a new crop whose ideology is actually a little closer to old-line conservatism than many in the current day GOP. If they want to keep the big offices and the new drapes, they'll do well to remember that. Otherwise this will be a real short ride.

Here's wishing you a pleasant two years of bitter and resentful opposition. It's not so bad after a while, and it's fun to complain about stuff without having to take any responsibility.

This is going to be a really interesting inside-baseball struggle for the Democrats. Their leadership would really love to go off the deep left end, and will lean hard on their new conservative members to hew the line. Maybe the conservative Democrat freshmen were sincere about their conservative policies, maybe not. We'll see. If what we saw Tuesday was a return of the Conservative Democrat then that's great for Conservatism, for the Country, and even for the Republicans. It would be even more interesting if we had a really conservative President, but we have a Compassionate Conservative so the waters are bound to be muddied. Stay tuned...

Then Dear Sister Brandy commented:

OK, I came here to gloat, but I feel for you. I really do. I remember what it is like to wake up after this big a loss. (Only there isn't a hint of election fraud this time to add salt to the wound.)

I love how all the exit polls, actually every poll for the last 6 months say that the Republicans are out of touch with the war, yet you choose fiscal responsibility and corruption as your two big planks.

OK, corruption was also high in the exit polls, but the war was number 1.

This isn't about Republicans working together, it's about Republicans working well with others.

Thanks for the sympathy. I appreciate the thought, but I don't really feel that bad because of the conservative Democrat factor at play here.

The election fraud was mostly a ginned up issue -- a matter of sour grapes from the left, although its hard to blame folks for being bitter about losing by less than the margin of error. There has always been a certain level of election fraud and cheating (ask MC about the old KC Pendergrast machine) but until the votes got so close it didn't much matter.

Fiscal responsibility and morality are the core of the Republican Party; without them who needs Republicans? The War is a policy issue, and there are a heck of a lot of people angry about waging it too pussyfootedly; plenty enough to have lost.

For Republicans to come back to majorities they will have to work together. Working well with others is good, too, as long as you don't betray your principles doing so.

Love you, too!

And finally, Walt wrote (under his natural nom de plum for a change):

Gosh, wouldn't it be fun if you could polish off that blog entry of about two years ago today when you smugly wrote about the permanent demise of the democratic party and the unstoppable superiority of the GOP? Hmmm? :-)

The one thing I NEVER expected the Democrats to do was to run as conservatives. Enough of them did this year to make the difference. As I said to Rob, if conservative Democrats are back, then that's a great thing for Conservatism. If it's just a trick, then it will be a short ride, to quote Rob. Either way I win. To be honest, I also didn't expect so many Republicans to lose sight of conservative principles so fast. I thought there were enough of them with enough energy to reform the culture of Washington. I was wrong about that. So sue me.

Two days after the election, I feel fine. The Republic will muddle through. Conservative principles have been strengthened in a way I never anticipated. The next Supreme Court Justice will probably suck from my point of view, but for the rest, no problemo.

Seen at low tide

HummingbirdFinally, my first hummingbirds. Saw them on a fire bush in Crystal Beach, FL. My rental's neighbor's yard is all xeriscaped, which is ugly to me but just fine with the little hummers. At first, I thought they were the biggest hornets I'd ever seen.

Flamingo!One of these dudes flew right over my house. I couldn't believe it. And please don't tell me it was a roseated spoonbill because it was a frickin' flamingo, dude! Huge and pink and right there above me. I was like so freaking out, you know?

Black SkimmerThese beauties are getting scarce, but one flew by yesterday at low tide on the hunt for minnows.

Dead sea turtlecool, but smelly

Reddish EgretThese have been hanging out around the pool quite a bit lately. Must be a new group of adolesent birds -- the youngsters like to hunt where the water is clear, and it takes them a day to figure out there are not now and never will be fish in the swimming pool no matter how clear the water.

Sand Piper

Brown PelicanI saw a flock of about 200 of these at Disappearing Island yesterday, just south of Anclote Island on the west coast of FL. Good to see such a large flock.

Wood PeckerThey've developed a sudden interest in the orange tree, which just went into bloom.